The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[TaylorB]

Italics normally means you're quoting something or someone else. If so, could you please provide a link to the source?

It's from my post before the impeachment started, giving a background about Ukraine. I set forth a number of inculpatory facts the investigation seemed likely to establish. After the investigation, I began asking Trump defenders whether they dispute that any of those particular facts were established, but no one will respond directly to the question. Here's the link:

Ukraine situation - a primer

By Taylor Bassett - Staff Writer | @bassett_taylor | MadAboutPolitics.comUkraine is part of the former USSR and is bordered to its east by Russia. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has inserted itself into Ukrainian politics in order to maintain control in the country, while many...

madaboutpolitics.com

I re-posted the list of facts because I wasn't getting straight responses. The simple question is, do you agree that the inculpatory facts I listed are accurate? If you dispute any of them, what is the basis for the dispute? If you agree to the facts, do you agree that it's evidence of really bad behavior by Trump?

 

[Beach Friends]

I‘m beginning to think there’s no piece of crappy propaganda that you wont believe. Or you are just totally trolling.

Trust me, the feeling is mutual - except I know you are not trolling.

I still think you are a good person. I just think someone dumped a 55 gallon barrel of confirmation bias on you.

 

[Dadsdream]

It's from my post before the impeachment started, giving a background about Ukraine. I set forth a number of inculpatory facts the investigation seemed likely to establish. After the investigation, I began asking Trump defenders whether they dispute that any of those particular facts were established, but no one will respond directly to the question. Here's the link:

Ukraine situation - a primer

By Taylor Bassett - Staff Writer | @bassett_taylor | MadAboutPolitics.comUkraine is part of the former USSR and is bordered to its east by Russia. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has inserted itself into Ukrainian politics in order to maintain control in the country, while many...

madaboutpolitics.com

I re-posted the list of facts because I wasn't getting straight responses. The simple question is, do you agree that the inculpatory facts I listed are accurate? If you dispute any of them, what is the basis for the dispute? If you agree to the facts, do you agree that it's evidence of really bad behavior by Trump?

Thanks! I'll look it over after work.
In the late 1990s, I was the sponsor/trainer/mentor for Ukrainian soldiers. Ukraine then requested training for more soldiers the following year and they were assigned to me as well. It was interesting duty, if a bit unnerving to see men wearing old Warsaw Pact uniforms in my classroom.
Then, the Lithuanians and Romanians showed up.
Things got tense when a Lithuanian pulled out a picture of his grandfather . . . a Waffen SS colonel . . . and showed it to the Ukrainians.
They called him a Nazi . . . he called them Cossacks . . . I got a call in the middle of the night to break up a hell of a fight.
Interesting duty, like I said.

 

[JimEverett]

How would you feel if the house intel committee subpoena’d Bolton before the articles are sent over?

He has been impeached and was done so on the record made by those doing the impeaching. I don't understand this idea that the Senate should be tasked with filling in the defects of the impeachment proceedings.
Should he not have been impeached on the record that was built?

 

[samiam5211]

He has been impeached and was done so on the record made by those doing the impeaching. I don't understand this idea that the Senate should be tasked with filling in the defects of the impeachment proceedings.
Should he not have been impeached on the record that was built?

I’m asking a specific question.

Would you have a problem with the house calling Bolton to testify?

So what if the democrats screwed it up?

It’s not a game. The democrats don’t lose their turn because they struck out.

We should all care about finding truth, and Bolton claims he has something to add.

 

[JimEverett]

I’m asking a specific question.

Would you have a problem with the house calling Bolton to testify?

So what if the democrats screwed it up?

It’s not a game. The democrats don’t lose their turn because they struck out.

We should all care about finding truth, and Bolton claims he has something to add.

I misunderstood your question. I would not have a problem if the House subpoenaed Bolton and fought for his testimony. I am not sure about what that does with the entire process or even if it has to be tied to this impeachment at all.


but the Senate has no duty to remedy defects in the impeachment case. ITs not the Senate's job.

As far as treating it like a game - look at who is treating this like a game: don't subpoena key witnesses, drop cases where you did subpoena witnesses, insist that you must rush the process through before Christmas only to then delay the process after you get the impeachment vote. All while whining that the Senate needs to do the House's job and that is unfair if they do not. That is treating the process like a game.

 

[TaylorB]

Thanks! I'll look it over after work.
In the late 1990s, I was the sponsor/trainer/mentor for Ukrainian soldiers. Ukraine then requested training for more soldiers the following year and they were assigned to me as well. It was interesting duty, if a bit unnerving to see men wearing old Warsaw Pact uniforms in my classroom.
Then, the Lithuanians and Romanians showed up.
Things got tense when a Lithuanian pulled out a picture of his grandfather . . . a Waffen SS colonel . . . and showed it to the Ukrainians.
They called him a Nazi . . . he called them Cossacks . . . I got a call in the middle of the night to break up a hell of a fight.
Interesting duty, like I said.

Interesting for sure! That story made me think of the Netflix documentary about John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian living in the US who was accused in the 80s of having been a Nazi war criminal. You might find it interesting having worked with different members of the former USSR not long after that time frame. Thanks for sharing.

 

[SaintForLife]

Those news entities reported on the Mueller investigation which established that at the same time Russia was engaged in cyber warfare against the US to assist Trump, Trump’s campaign manager was secretly sharing internal campaign polling data on key battleground states with Russian oligarchs at a time when Trump was secretly negotiating a huge business deal in Russia while lying to the US
public about it, none of which Trump or his people mentioned to the FBI when they were briefed that Russia was attacking us. Among those that were imprisoned for dealings with Russians or lying about those dealings include Trump’s lawyer, multiple national security advisors, campaign manager, campaign manager’s deputy, and close friend. It’s shocking people continue to act like it was/is a baseless conspiracy.

It's shocking that you don't know that not a single person was imprisoned for dealings with Russia.

Those news entities reported on a lot more than just the Mueller investigation. Every week or two there was a new "bombshell" that always proved to be false after closer examination and a few days later. Those same news entities sourced all of their Russia reporting to unnamed government officials and they never grew skeptical even after their source's bombshells turned out to be false over and over.

The polling data that Manafort shared with Kilimnik showed no conspiracy per Mueller and he said it was likely due to financial motivations because Manafort was in debt. It was later shown that Kilimnik was a high level State Department source, but Mueller withheld that from his report and court filings.


Trump did lie about pursuing the business deal with Russia, but the same Russians that were at the Trump Tower meeting, paid GPS Fusion. We know that GPS Fusion was involved with Steele and the Dossier. GPS Fusion also met with the same Russians before and after the Trump Tower meeting.

 

[Beach Friends]

It's shocking that you don't know that not a single person was imprisoned for dealings with Russia.

Those news entities reported on a lot more than just the Mueller investigation. Every week or two there was a new "bombshell" that always proved to be false after closer examination and a few days later. Those same news entities sourced all of their Russia reporting to unnamed government officials and they never grew skeptical even after their source's bombshells turned out to be false over and over.

The polling data that Manafort shared with Kilimnik showed no conspiracy per Mueller and he said it was likely due to financial motivations because Manafort was in debt. It was later shown that Kilimnik was a high level State Department source, but Mueller withheld that from his report and court filings.


Trump did lie about pursuing the business deal with Russia, but the same Russians that were at the Trump Tower meeting, paid GPS Fusion. We know that GPS Fusion was involved with Steele and the Dossier. GPS Fusion also met with the same Russians before and after the Trump Tower meeting.

I am curious as to whether these people will be able to continue to plug their ears and cover their eyes when Durham is ready to bring his reckoning.

It was pretty amazing to see the lengths they were willing to go to pretend Horowitz exonarated the FBI.

 

[samiam5211]

I am curious as to whether these people will be able to continue to plug their ears and cover their eyes when Durham is ready to bring his reckoning.

What's taking Durham so long? People have been talking about the imminent release of his findings since Thanksgiving. What is the holdup?

Why hasn't Rudy released all the information he uncovered in Ukraine with his KGB buddies?

 

[Beach Friends]

What's taking Durham so long? People have been talking about the imminent release of his findings since Thanksgiving. What is the holdup?

Why hasn't Rudy released all the information he uncovered in Ukraine with his KGB buddies?

I don't know where you heard that, but the last timeline I heard was that we could expect the investigation to run through late Spring.

With the magnitude of his investigation, it would be prudent to make certain the investigation is thorough and you don't have half baked theories.

This is Durham we are talking about, not Schiff. He's not going to be presenting a parody.

 

[TaylorB]

It's shocking that you don't know that not a single person was imprisoned for dealings with Russia.

Those news entities reported on a lot more than just the Mueller investigation. Every week or two there was a new "bombshell" that always proved to be false after closer examination and a few days later. Those same news entities sourced all of their Russia reporting to unnamed government officials and they never grew skeptical even after their source's bombshells turned out to be false over and over.

The polling data that Manafort shared with Kilimnik showed no conspiracy per Mueller and he said it was likely due to financial motivations because Manafort was in debt. It was later shown that Kilimnik was a high level State Department source, but Mueller withheld that from his report and court filings.


Trump did lie about pursuing the business deal with Russia, but the same Russians that were at the Trump Tower meeting, paid GPS Fusion. We know that GPS Fusion was involved with Steele and the Dossier. GPS Fusion also met with the same Russians before and after the Trump Tower meeting.

So you admit Trump lied about his own dealings with Russia, which again, was a several hundred million dollar deal being negotiated in secret. By mentioning Fusion GPS are you somehow implying Trump was baited to lie about hundred million dollar deals in Moscow to the American public? If not, what are you implying?

You admit Trump's campaign manager was sharing internal campaign polling data with Kilimnik. Kilimnik had ties to Russian intelligence and was indicted by Mueller.

You didn't mention that Manafort was sharing the data with Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of Putin. That's who Manafort owed a lot of money to. You didn't mention that Manafort said in emails he wanted to use his position in the campaign to "get whole" with Deripaska. What the ****? Trump's campaign manager offers to work for free and is somehow using his position in the campaign to "get whole" with a Putin ally? That's a big deal, right?

You didn't say what Mueller's office said about why it could not establish (beyond a reasonable doubt -- a criminal burden of proof) exactly what Kilimnik was doing with the data -- because Manafort lied about it, including whether he and Kilimnik discussed "battleground states," some of which the Russians only began to target after Manafort shared the info. The Mueller report mentioned lots of instances where it was precluded from proving things beyond a reasonable doubt because evidence was destroyed, they were misled, witnesses were tampered with, they were obstructed, etc. Why did Manafort discuss battleground states with a Russian intelligence officer at the same time Russia was targeting particular states to try to sway the election?

When you say you're shocked I didn't know that no one went to prison for dealings with Russia, to be clear, are you drawing the distinction that the reason all the people who were indicted and/or went to prison is that they were lying about dealings with Russia, instead of going to prison for the dealings themselves? Do you know or care why they were all lying about Russia? If you're saying you needed to see more criminal indictments from Mueller to believe it wasn't a hoax, then why are you still focused on the IG investigation that has turned up no indictments? If it's because there's one ongoing probe by Durham you still want to see played out, I'll remind you that there are 14 pending investigations that spun off from the Mueller probe, and we are still being prohibited from accessing information about Trump's Russia ties because of those pending investigations.

We do know, though, that Trump's campaign manager was working for Trump for free, giving internal polling data to a Putin ally he owed lots of money to (you're not the least bit curious as to why?). Trump was negotiating a giant business deal in Moscow and lying to America about it. Trump's good friend was lying to the FBI about coordinating timing of email releases with Russian cutouts. Trump's lawyer was lying about Trump's business deals in Moscow at Trump's direction. Trump's deputy campaign manager pled guilty to hiding his lobbying efforts on behalf of pro-Russian Ukrainians. One of Trump's national security advisors lied about trying to get stolen emails from Russians. One of Trump's national security advisors lied about secretly negotiating Russian sanctions imposed by Obama for Russian election meddling while Obama was still president. One of Manafort's associates pled guilty to using a straw donor to help a pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarch buy tickets to Trump's inauguration. Trump's son likely (key word "likely") lied about the June 9 Trump Tower meeting with Russians. Kushner likely lied about the reason for that meeting. Sessions likely lied about his own contacts with Russians, and on and on. Trump's campaign was briefed by the FBI on Russian interference, but didn't mention they had given polling data to people tied to Russian intelligence and Putin? Why didn't it occur to any of them to mention to the FBI "oh by the way, Russia's coming at us from all angles trying to interfere and throw the election to us, just a heads up."

Instead of being mad those people lied to you and the public, you're mad at the media narrative for being too anti-Trump. You're mad the media called reporting on all of this "bombshells." It's hard to argue it's not a bombshell when someone close to a president lies about dealings with a hostile foreign power. What bombshells were reported that ended up not being true? That Cohen was in Prague? What else? I've described many more deliberate falsehoods by Trump people in this post than stories in major media in the last 3 years that turned out to be untrue. If you've got proof of false stories, send me links to them. I can send links supporting everything in this post.

Finally -- please see my list of inculpatory impeachment facts in prior posts. Do you dispute any of those facts? If so, which ones? Do you agree Trump's behavior was bad?

 

[Archies Ghost]

Late Spring means June.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Durham’s investigation will bring about no indictments. They don’t want any indictments because it will mean a trial which means any defendant will be able to bring up evidence to explain their actions.

it’ll show the same thing as Horowitz, IMO. Rush to judgement, sloppy following of procedures, and maybe unauthorized leaks to the press.

 

[Nebaghead]

Durham’s investigation will bring about no indictments. They don’t want any indictments because it will mean a trial which means any defendant will be able to bring up evidence to explain their actions.

it’ll show the same thing as Horowitz, IMO. Rush to judgement, sloppy following of procedures, and maybe unauthorized leaks to the press.

Fodder for the 2020’election.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I misunderstood your question. I would not have a problem if the House subpoenaed Bolton and fought for his testimony. I am not sure about what that does with the entire process or even if it has to be tied to this impeachment at all.


but the Senate has no duty to remedy defects in the impeachment case. ITs not the Senate's job.

As far as treating it like a game - look at who is treating this like a game: don't subpoena key witnesses, drop cases where you did subpoena witnesses, insist that you must rush the process through before Christmas only to then delay the process after you get the impeachment vote. All while whining that the Senate needs to do the House's job and that is unfair if they do not. That is treating the process like a game.

yes, the Democrats are treating it as a political game. Doesn’t mean we should support it, right?

is it worth finding out if Trump was using his office to damage a political opponent and using national security funding to do so?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Fodder for the 2020’election.

i don’t think that will help Trump. Particularly if the defendants are allowed to talk about the evidence they saw that lead them to the belief that they needed to investigate.

 

[SaintForLife]

So you admit Trump lied about his own dealings with Russia, which again, was a several hundred million dollar deal being negotiated in secret. By mentioning Fusion GPS are you somehow implying Trump was baited to lie about hundred million dollar deals in Moscow to the American public? If not, what are you implying?

You admit Trump's campaign manager was sharing internal campaign polling data with Kilimnik. Kilimnik had ties to Russian intelligence and was indicted by Mueller.

You didn't mention that Manafort was sharing the data with Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of Putin. That's who Manafort owed a lot of money to. You didn't mention that Manafort said in emails he wanted to use his position in the campaign to "get whole" with Deripaska. What the ****? Trump's campaign manager offers to work for free and is somehow using his position in the campaign to "get whole" with a Putin ally? That's a big deal, right?

You didn't say what Mueller's office said about why it could not establish (beyond a reasonable doubt -- a criminal burden of proof) exactly what Kilimnik was doing with the data -- because Manafort lied about it, including whether he and Kilimnik discussed "battleground states," some of which the Russians only began to target after Manafort shared the info. The Mueller report mentioned lots of instances where it was precluded from proving things beyond a reasonable doubt because evidence was destroyed, they were misled, witnesses were tampered with, they were obstructed, etc. Why did Manafort discuss battleground states with a Russian intelligence officer at the same time Russia was targeting particular states to try to sway the election?

When you say you're shocked I didn't know that no one went to prison for dealings with Russia, to be clear, are you drawing the distinction that the reason all the people who were indicted and/or went to prison is that they were lying about dealings with Russia, instead of going to prison for the dealings themselves? Do you know or care why they were all lying about Russia? If you're saying you needed to see more criminal indictments from Mueller to believe it wasn't a hoax, then why are you still focused on the IG investigation that has turned up no indictments? If it's because there's one ongoing probe by Durham you still want to see played out, I'll remind you that there are 14 pending investigations that spun off from the Mueller probe, and we are still being prohibited from accessing information about Trump's Russia ties because of those pending investigations.

We do know, though, that Trump's campaign manager was working for Trump for free, giving internal polling data to a Putin ally he owed lots of money to (you're not the least bit curious as to why?). Trump was negotiating a giant business deal in Moscow and lying to America about it. Trump's good friend was lying to the FBI about coordinating timing of email releases with Russian cutouts. Trump's lawyer was lying about Trump's business deals in Moscow at Trump's direction. Trump's deputy campaign manager pled guilty to hiding his lobbying efforts on behalf of pro-Russian Ukrainians. One of Trump's national security advisors lied about trying to get stolen emails from Russians. One of Trump's national security advisors lied about secretly negotiating Russian sanctions imposed by Obama for Russian election meddling while Obama was still president. One of Manafort's associates pled guilty to using a straw donor to help a pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarch buy tickets to Trump's inauguration. Trump's son likely (key word "likely") lied about the June 9 Trump Tower meeting with Russians. Kushner likely lied about the reason for that meeting. Sessions likely lied about his own contacts with Russians, and on and on. Trump's campaign was briefed by the FBI on Russian interference, but didn't mention they had given polling data to people tied to Russian intelligence and Putin? Why didn't it occur to any of them to mention to the FBI "oh by the way, Russia's coming at us from all angles trying to interfere and throw the election to us, just a heads up."

Instead of being mad those people lied to you and the public, you're mad at the media narrative for being too anti-Trump. You're mad the media called reporting on all of this "bombshells." It's hard to argue it's not a bombshell when someone close to a president lies about dealings with a hostile foreign power. What bombshells were reported that ended up not being true? That Cohen was in Prague? What else? I've described many more deliberate falsehoods by Trump people in this post than stories in major media in the last 3 years that turned out to be untrue. If you've got proof of false stories, send me links to them. I can send links supporting everything in this post.

Finally -- please see my list of inculpatory impeachment facts in prior posts. Do you dispute any of those facts? If so, which ones? Do you agree Trump's behavior was bad?

That's a nice term paper you wrote documenting all the lies and questionable activities by shady Trump officials, but it still doesn't amount to any conspiracy or collusion between Trump and Russia.

Do you have a link or proof that Kilimnik had ties to Russian Intelligence? Mueller didn't provide any evidence for that to be the case and he hid that Kilimnik was a US State Department asset. I wonder why Mueller tried to hide that. Mueller only said that the FBI had assessed that Kilimnik had ties to Russian intelligence. Here is the flimsy support for Muellers claim:

Kilimnik was indicted for obstruction of justice and NOT for having any ties to Russia. DC judge Amy Berman Jackson said that Mueller didn't provide her with any evidence to show that Kilimnik had any ties to Russian intelligence.

Mueller didn't find any connection between Manafort sharing the polling data and the Russian interference. Have you read any of the Mueller report?